dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22678683 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 28, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a materials scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. If that petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles. 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits 
determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where 
the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in 
the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's de ee atl ITJniversity in China in 2016. While he was a 
graduate student at the Universit of he conducted research concerning the use of 
I I alloys to produce and to charge electronic devices. After he earned a 
master's degree in chemistry in 2018, the Petitioner began working forl I inl I 
California. He now holds H-1B nonimmigrant status. 1 The Petitioner's most recent research focuses on 
I lused inl I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, relating to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the criterion relating to 
original contributions of major significance. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied all three claimed criteria. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(v) calls for evidence of the individual's original contributions 
of major si ificance in the field. The Petitioner stated that "[h]]e is especially well-known for evaluating 
filtratio disinfection methods. Furthermore, [ the Petitioner's] work on 
efficacy has impacted the World Health Organization's and Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention's guidance regarding! I during equipment shortages during the COVID-19 health 
crisis." 
The Petitioner submitted partial copies of 11 of his journal articles. The four most recent articles deal 
with I I Many of the other articles, published between 
1 On August 20, 2021, the Petitioner filed a Form I-140 petition on his own behalf, seeking to classify himselfas an 
individual of exceptional ability or a member of the professions holding an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2)(A) 
of the Act. The Petitioner also sought a national interest waiver of the requirement for a job offer, under section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. That petition, with receipt number I was approvedon August26. 2022. 
2 
2015 and 2020, concern the use of __ alloys for charging electronic devices orl for use in I _____ 
The Petitioner submitted an October2021 printout from Google Scholar, showing the numberofcitations 
each article had received before that time. The Petitioner's three articles with the highest number of 
citations were as follows: 
• ACS Nano 2020, 
249 citations 
• -----------------------~Vouk 
2019 1 77 citations 
• 
Nano Letters 2020, 132 citations 
Ten other articles published between 2015 and 2020 had each accumulated less than 50 citations, for a 
cumulative total of 841 citations. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated: "the record does not establish a pattern of producing heavily 
cited research consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim that the statute demands." 
As worded, this statement conflates the initial evidentiary threshold, relating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), with the later step of the final merits determination, in which sustained national or 
international acclaim comes into play. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director does not appear to have fully considered all the evidence 
or explained why it is insufficient to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Director also 
discussed, at some length, information from "the Academiclnfluence.com website." The record does not 
contain any printouts from that site, and the Petitioner's correspondence does not mention the site.2 
Because this information is not in the record, we cannot tell how the named individuals were selected and 
ranked, nor can we determine how authoritative the website is in that regard. 
Even then, the Director cited this outside information to support the conclusion that the Petitioner "would 
not stack up in comparison to the top IO or even the top 50" materials scientists listed on that site. In the 
context of the regulatory criterion, an individual's rank in the field is not a factor; the requirement is 
"original contributions of major significance." Even in the broader context of the final merits 
determination, there is no requirement that an individual must rank among "the top 50" in a given field 
in order to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. 
Relying on a 2021 printout of "In Cites Essential Science Indicators" from Clarivate Analytics, which 
includes a table of citation rates in materials science, the Petitioner noted that the citation of his work put 
his ACS Nano article in the top 0.01 % for its year of publication, and the articles from Joule and Nano 
Letters each in the top O .1 %. Given this information, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the 
Petitioner's articles have been heavily cited relative to others in the field of mate1ials science. 
2 It therefore appears thatthe Directorrelied, in part, on information from outside the record of proceeding, withoutpriornotice 
to the Petitioner as required by 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i). 
3 
Between the heavy citation of some of the Petitioner's articles and explanations of the relevance and 
implications of the work cited, the record is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage atthe very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not give sufficient weight to the heavy citation of the 
Petitioner's work in the context of the threshold criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). At the same time, 
however, the citation of some of the Petitioner's recent work is not sufficient to establish sustained 
national or international acclaim in the context of the final me1its determination. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 04. 5 (h )(3) clearly describes that the Petitioner must establish sustained 
national or international acclaim as an individual; the statuteandregulations do not contemplate collective 
acclaim forresearch teams or employers. This is significant because the Petitioner is one of eight credited 
co-authors of the A CS Nano article described above. In a letter submitted with the petition, a co-author 
of that article described the overall project, without addressing the division oflabor among the eight co­
authors to properly analyze the Beneficiary's contribution. 
In a request for evidence, the Director asked for "as much detail as possible about the [Petitioner's] 
contribution." In response, the article's primary author stated that the Petitioner "was just as influential 
as I was in terms of the overall effort made and the final outcome. In our work together, I personally 
observed [the Petitioner's] significant skills in the field of chemistry. His leadership, innovative spirit, 
and expert understanding of the subject matter were all key factors in this project's success." These 
assertions, however, provide no details as to how the Petitioner contributed to the project. We note that 
the Petitioner did not submit a complete copy of the ACS Nano article, and the record does not reveal 
whether the missing portion of the article sheds more light on the nature of the Petitioner's contributions 
to the project. The record does not show, for instance, whether the Petitioner conceived of the project, 
set the protocols, or performed comparatively smaller laboratory tasks such as measurements, sample 
preparation, ordatacollection, underthe direction of others. 
Furthermore, when considering the record as a whole for the final merits determination, we note that a 
researcher can readily satisfy theregulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi) without attaining 
sustained national or international acclaim. The Petitioner's activity as a judge of the work of others has 
3 See also 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCIS officers should then 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise fortheirnmigrant classification). 
4 
been as a peer reviewer of manuscripts, which appears to be a routine activity in academia rather than a 
reflection of sustained national or international acclaim. Likewise, authorship of one's own scholarly 
articles appears to be integral to scientific research. The Petitioner notes that some of the journals that 
have published his work boast high impact factors, a measure of overall citation frequency, but it does 
not follow that a researcher who publishes in those journals is, forthatreason, invariably or presumptively 
more acclaimed than his or her peers. 
The Petitioner has undertaken research in important areas, with implications not only for public health 
but also clean energy generation, consistent with the recent approval of another immigrant petition under 
a lesser classification. His collaborators at I include some very prominent names. However, the 
Beneficiary has not attained or demonstrated comparable prominence himself.. The record does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner, as an individual, has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has worked on teams that produced some influential 
papers, but he has not shown that the recognition of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No.101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, l 990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5